Lowe v Lowe

The case of Lowe v Lowe was heard in the court of appeal where the matter involved a dispute over the costs of an action that had been settled. The respondents, the wife and the daughter, sought to have the costs of the whole action awarded to them on the basis that the husband and father, the appellant, had abandoned his claim without any reasonable prospect of success. The appeal was brought by the husband and father who argued that he should not be liable for the full costs of the action as the respondents had not succeeded on all grounds.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the husband and father should be liable for the full costs of the action, or if there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant awarding costs to only one party. The court was required to determine if the usual rule that the losing party pays the costs of the whole action should apply, or if there were circumstances that would allow for an exception to this rule.

The court found that the husband and father had abandoned his claim without any reasonable prospect of success and therefore, the usual rule applied. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant awarding costs to only one party. The court found that the husband and father had not demonstrated that it was plain that he would have succeeded had the matter been fully tried. Therefore, the husband and father was liable for the full costs of the action.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the husband and father pay the costs of the respondents. The court held that the usual rule applied and there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant awarding costs to only one party. The husband and father was liable for the full costs of the action.